Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Who are these 'higher powers'?

This is an old debate. Does the context say 'civil governments'? Or does it say 'organized churches'? I have seen it taught either way. In the Greek it is not clear whether this is talking about civil government or congregational. In seminary I was taught that this higher power were church leaders.

So what is it?

Read the context yourself, it becomes quickly apparent that it is NOT talking about civil governments [Hitler? Stalin? Mao Zedong?]

The message is to live peaceably and not to fight with the 'power structures', as godly and peaceable men we have a higher calling which is above the in-fighting of these worldly power structures.

Also the text does not say that doing such is a sin.

Quote:

1 Peter 2:11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.
:12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme.
:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.
:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

'abstain from fleshly lusts' and then as an example; .... contending against earthly rulers is an example of fleshly lusts.

'every ordinance of man' [king, supremes, governors] just as if they were sent by God to punish evildoers.

This passage does not say that king / supremes / governors ARE sent by God.

We are to submit "for the Lord's sake" [not for any righteousness in civil ruler-ship, but because our submitting will bring the greater glory to the Lord].

These kings / supremes / governors are not sent by God, rather we are to submit to them as if they were sent by God, so that with our well-doing we may put to silence their ignorance.

IF crossing the road without a crosswalk is illegal, then don't do it. Because it brings bad reputation to be known as a law-breaker. But J-walking is not spiritual in itself. Because in the next town over it might not be illegal. Something can not be spiritual here, but not spiritual over there. Either it is, or it is not.

My town has no crosswalks, none, not one. If you are going to cross the road you must j-walk. Any law against J-walking is not a universal law in our land. So it is clearly not a sin to J-walk. It is not so black/white.

But J-walking may bring dis-honor if you do it in a place where you can get arrested for it.

This is an old debate. Does the context say 'civil governments'? Or does it say 'organized churches'? I have seen it taught either way. In the Greek it is not clear whether this is talking about civil government or congregational. In seminary I was taught that this higher power were church leaders.

So what is it?

Read the context yourself, it becomes quickly apparent that it is NOT talking about civil governments [Hitler? Stalin? Mao Zedong?]

The message is to live peaceably and not to fight with the 'power structures', as godly and peaceable men we have a higher calling which is above the in-fighting of these worldly power structures.

Also the text does not say that doing such is a sin.

'abstain from fleshly lusts' and then as an example; .... contending against earthly rulers is an example of fleshly lusts.

'every ordinance of man' [king, supremes, governors] just as if they were sent by God to punish evildoers.

This passage does not say that king / supremes / governors ARE sent by God.

We are to submit "for the Lord's sake" [not for any righteousness in civil ruler-ship, but because our submitting will bring the greater glory to the Lord].

These kings / supremes / governors are not sent by God, rather we are to submit to them as if they were sent by God, so that with our well-doing we may put to silence their ignorance.

IF crossing the road without a crosswalk is illegal, then don't do it. Because it brings bad reputation to be known as a law-breaker. But J-walking is not spiritual in itself. Because in the next town over it might not be illegal. Something can not be spiritual here, but not spiritual over there. Either it is, or it is not.

My town has no crosswalks, none, not one. If you are going to cross the road you must j-walk. Any law against J-walking is not a universal law in our land. So it is clearly not a sin to J-walk. It is not so black/white.

But J-walking may bring dis-honor if you do it in a place where you can get arrested for it.

This is an old debate. Does the context say 'civil governments'? Or does it say 'organized churches'? I have seen it taught either way. In the Greek it is not clear whether this is talking about civil government or congregational. In seminary I was taught that this higher power were church leaders.

So what is it?

Read the context yourself, it becomes quickly apparent that it is NOT talking about civil governments [Hitler? Stalin? Mao Zedong?]

The message is to live peaceably and not to fight with the 'power structures', as godly and peaceable men we have a higher calling which is above the in-fighting of these worldly power structures.

Also the text does not say that doing such is a sin.

'abstain from fleshly lusts' and then as an example; .... contending against earthly rulers is an example of fleshly lusts.

'every ordinance of man' [king, supremes, governors] just as if they were sent by God to punish evildoers.

This passage does not say that king / supremes / governors ARE sent by God.

We are to submit "for the Lord's sake" [not for any righteousness in civil ruler-ship, but because our submitting will bring the greater glory to the Lord].

These kings / supremes / governors are not sent by God, rather we are to submit to them as if they were sent by God, so that with our well-doing we may put to silence their ignorance.

IF crossing the road without a crosswalk is illegal, then don't do it. Because it brings bad reputation to be known as a law-breaker. But J-walking is not spiritual in itself. Because in the next town over it might not be illegal. Something can not be spiritual here, but not spiritual over there. Either it is, or it is not.

My town has no crosswalks, none, not one. If you are going to cross the road you must j-walk. Any law against J-walking is not a universal law in our land. So it is clearly not a sin to J-walk. It is not so black/white.

But J-walking may bring dis-honor if you do it in a place where you can get arrested for it.

There are many states which allow medicinal marijuana, but the feds don't agree. So, who do we follow? .

From my understanding (based on the local police chief) States that have legal medicinal marijuana ..it is only legal in the confines to the place of where it is legal. Meaning there other chemicals \ drugs that are only legal to have\use in a hospital\clinic. Any imparment or usage or suspicion of use by those chemicals\drugs outside of those limited area's is still illegal.

medicinal marijuana is no different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by herefornow

Also, many people abuse all kinds of over the counter meds, but mature adults use them for good reasons. Should we ban cough syrup because kids use it to get high? Should we ban medicinal marijuana because of "dope heads and hippies" or should we allow cancer patients, the chronic pain patients, etc. to have access to something natural? .

Any abuse of a legal substance is a sinful act.

Should we ban cough syrup because kids use it to get high?

Do we ban glue?

Do we ban turpentine\paint thinner

Do we ban gas

Do we ban spray paint

Do we ban pseudoephedrine

The ban of marijuana is justifiable because of "dope heads and hippies" who are leftovers from the 70's. Cancer patients, the chronic pain patients, etc have other avenues that comes from regulated sourses that are just as effective for pain management.

The ban of marijuana is justifiable because of "dope heads and hippies" who are leftovers from the 70's. Cancer patients, the chronic pain patients, etc have other avenues that comes from regulated sourses that are just as effective for pain management.

I don't think that you could possibly know that. Pain management is different for each person. Different people have different reactions to different medications. What works for some might not work for others. For instance, I get migraines and so do many of my friends. The medicine that works for me makes the migraines worse for some of my friends. Plus, chances are, if there are side effects associated with a drug - I usually have them. I've only taken tylenol with codeine one time (when I had my wisdom teeth out) and it made me barf. No thank you! If medicinal marijuana helps someone with their pain - if that is what they prefer - they should be allowed to use it. Anything to relieve people of their suffering.

And dope heads and hippies are not the only ones who smoke pot. Doctors, lawyers, etc - I've known people of all walks of life who have smoked pot and who still smoke pot. They have not been dope heads or hippies. I don't judge people like that.

It's not only for pain but as an appetite stimulant and for nausea and vomiting. A lot of cancer patients lose so much weight because they cannot eat.

I wish I'd have known these things when my mother was dying from cancer, (well, from the cancer treatments really) and went through such horrific things. I would have not hesitated to buy some pot from a kid in my school and given it to her.

And dope heads and hippies are not the only ones who smoke pot. Doctors, lawyers, etc - I've known people of all walks of life who have smoked pot and who still smoke pot. They have not been dope heads or hippies. I don't judge people like that.

This is very true.

Honestly, I'd be more concerned about the people using/abusing cocaine, crack, meth, alcohol, prescriptions,and all that other nasty stuff that's actually BAD for you!

I don't think that you could possibly know that. Pain management is different for each person. Different people have different reactions to different medications. What works for some might not work for others. For instance, I get migraines and so do many of my friends. The medicine that works for me makes the migraines worse for some of my friends. Plus, chances are, if there are side effects associated with a drug - I usually have them. I've only taken tylenol with codeine one time (when I had my wisdom teeth out) and it made me barf. No thank you! If medicinal marijuana helps someone with their pain - if that is what they prefer - they should be allowed to use it. Anything to relieve people of their suffering.

And dope heads and hippies are not the only ones who smoke pot. Doctors, lawyers, etc - I've known people of all walks of life who have smoked pot and who still smoke pot. They have not been dope heads or hippies. I don't judge people like that.

Likewise, I don't think that you could possibly know that medicinal marijuana helps someone with their pain any more than any other medicine. The US has an aging drug addicted population, making illegal drugs legal will not solve it.

Walk of life isn't what makes a dope head or a hippie (or an alcholic) ... it's only the ones who smoke pot.

"If medicinal marijuana helps someone with their pain - if that is what they prefer - they should be allowed to use it. Anything to relieve people of their suffering."

Which will be a good source of income for the dope head doctors and trial lawyers.

Likewise, I don't think that you could possibly know that medicinal marijuana helps someone with their pain any more than any other medicine. The US has an aging drug addicted population, making illegal drugs legal will not solve it.

Walk of life isn't what makes a dope head or a hippie (or an alcholic) ... it's only the ones who smoke pot.

"If medicinal marijuana helps someone with their pain - if that is what they prefer - they should be allowed to use it. Anything to relieve people of their suffering."

Which will be a good source of income for the dope head doctors and trial lawyers.

I find your comments so judgemental and unfeeling. I'm just going to leave it at that.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.